The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert M. Dow, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ida Trevino's ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Trevino") motion to remand  this case to the Circuit Court of Cook County. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion is granted.
On April 21, 2006, a rented U-Haul moving truck driven by an Illinois citizen, William Geary, crossed a highway median in Kentucky and crashed into a tractor-trailer driven by a Texas citizen, Gregorio Trevino, Jr. As a result of the collision, both vehicles caught fire and three people were killed, including both drivers.
Mr. Trevino, Jr. was survived by his spouse, Ida Trevino, his two minor children, Sara and Angela Trevino, and his parents, Gregorio and Oralia Trevino. This case is one of multiple actions that have been brought on behalf of Mr. Trevino Jr.'s survivors, all of whom are residents of Texas. Because the procedural history of those actions is relevant to the disposition of the pending motion, the Court will set forth that history in some detail below.
On January 24, 2008, Gregorio Trevino, Sr. brought a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County (No. 08-L-0841) against U-Haul International, Inc., U-Haul Company of Illinois, Inc., and Roger D. Geary, who is William Geary's step-son and a citizen of Tennessee. That lawsuit asserted negligence claims on behalf of Mr. Trevino, Jr.'s parents only and attached an order appointing Janet M. Deutsch as "Special Administrator to serve as Defendant for all purposes relating to this lawsuit." On March 10, 2008, the U-Haul Defendants removed Mr. Trevino, Sr.'s lawsuit to this Court, where it remains pending as Case No. 08-cv-1409. Plaintiffs did not seek remand, thereby consenting to have the case heard in federal court.
On April 10, 2008, Ida Trevino, in her individual capacity and as Special Administrator of her deceased husband's estate, and as the representative of the minor children, brought a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County (No. 08-L-3922) against various U-Haul entities, General Motors Corporation, and Mechelle Walsh, as Special Administrator of the Estate of William Geary. Ms. Trevino's initial lawsuit consisted of 15 counts and sought relief under theories of strict liability, negligence, and willful and wanton conduct under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, the Survival Act, and the Family Expense Act. On April 14, 2008, before any local Defendants were served with the lawsuit, U-Haul International, Inc. removed the lawsuit to federal court, where it was assigned to Judge Gettleman as Case No. 08-cv-2120. After amending her complaint as of right on April 16, 2008, to add additional U-Haul entities as Defendants, Ms. Trevino voluntarily dismissed the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) on April 17, 2008.
The following day, April 18, 2008, Ms. Trevino filed a second complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County (No. 08-L-4269), asserting virtually the same claims as in her amended complaint in the prior lawsuit, but appointing Jeffrey Crook in place of Mechelle Walsh as Special Administrator to serve as a Defendant on behalf of William Geary's estate. On that same day, Ms. Trevino served Mr. Crook -- who is deemed to be a local defendant because he stands in the shoes of an Illinois citizen, William Geary -- and Mr. Crook filed a responsive pleading. On April 21, 2008, U-Haul International, Inc. removed Ms. Trevino's second lawsuit to federal court, where again it was assigned the Judge Gettleman as Case No. 08-cv-2255. This Court subsequently granted the U-Haul Defendants' motion to reassign that case to this Court as related to the lawsuit filed by Mr. Trevino, Jr.'s parents, No. 08-cv-1409.
Now pending before the Court is Ms. Trevino's motion to remand  Case No. 08-cv-2255 to the Circuit Court of Cook County. Having carefully considered the parties' briefs and the oral arguments presented at the October 21 status hearing, the Court grants Ms. Trevino's motion and remands this case to state court.
A. Basic Principles of Removal and Remand
In deciding whether to remand a case, the Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations of the complaint. Sheridan v. Flynn, 2003 WL 22282378, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2003). A plaintiff's choice of forum is presumed valid and the Court must resolve any doubts about jurisdiction in favor of remand. See, e.g., Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993) ("Courts should interpret the removal statute narrowly and presume that the plaintiff may choose his or her forum"); Schmude v. Sheahan, 198 F. Supp. 2d 964, 966 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ("Generally, the removal statute is strictly construed, with an eye towards limiting federal jurisdiction"). Defendants bear the burden of establishing that all of the prerequisites for removal have been satisfied. Boyd v. Phoenix Funding Corp., 366 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2004). In determining whether removal is proper, the Court must consider the circumstances at the time the removal was made. See, e.g., In re Shell Oil Co., 966 F.2d 1130, 1133 (7th Cir. 1992).
1. Application of the "Served and Joined" Rule
In seeking remand, Plaintiff first points to the so-called "joined and served" rule set forth in the removal statute itself. Under that rule, an action filed in state court in which the basis for removal is diversity jurisdiction "shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served is a citizen of the State in which such an action is brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Hurley v. Motor Coach Indus., Inc., 222 F.3d 377, 378 (7th Cir. 2000). Application of the rule here means that this case was not suitable for removal if Plaintiff properly joined and served a citizen of Illinois as a Defendant. As one judge in this district has commented, "the purpose of the 'joined and served' requirement is to prevent a plaintiff from blocking ...